Field of View Effects on a Simulated Flight Task with Head-Down and Head-Up Sensor Imagery Displays

Brickner, Michael S.; Foyle, David C.

doi:10.1177/154193129003401931

Cited by 8 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, Brickner and Foyle (1990) reported that field of view affected heading control in a flight simulator, with more narrow fields of view (e.g., 25°) leading to impaired performance relative to larger fields of view (e.g., 55°). Weikhorst and Vacarro (1988) found that maneuvers performed by pilots in a flight simulator, such as the aileron and barrel roll, were performed significantly better with a very wide field of view of 300°than with a field of view of 36°or 144°.…”

Section: Restricted Field Of Viewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Perceptual Issues in the Use of Head-Mounted Visual Displays

2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing this collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)2. REPORT TYPE 3. DATES COVERED (From -To) SPONSORING / MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S)AFRL; AFRL/HEA SPONSOR/MONITOR'S REPORT NUMBER(S) Air Force Research Laboratory Human Effectiveness Directorate Warfighter Readiness Research Division 6030 South Kent Street Mesa AZ 85212-6061 AFRL-HE-AZ-TP-2007-03 DISTRIBUTION / AVAILABILITY STATEMENTApproved for public release; distribution is unlimited. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTESThis paper was originally published in the journal Human Factors (Volume 48, Fall 2006). ABSTRACTObjective: We provide a review and analysis of much of the published literature on visual perception issues that impact the design and use of head-mounted displays (HMDs). Background: Unlike the previous literature on HMDs, this review draws heavily from the basic vision literature in order to help provide insight for future design solutions for HMDs. Method: Included in this review are articles and books found cited in other works as well as articles and books obtained from an Internet search. Results: Issues discussed include the effect of brightness and contrast on depth of field, dark focus, dark vergence, and perceptual constancy; the effect of accommodation/vergence synergy on perceptual constancy, eyestrain, and discomfort; the relationship of field of view to the functioning of different visual pathways and the types of visualmotor tasks mediated by them; the relationship of binocular input to visual suppression; and the importance of head movements, head tracking, and display update lag. Conclusion: This paper offers a set of recommendations for the design and use of HMDs. Application: Consideration of the basic vision literature will provide insight for future design solutions for HMDs.

show abstract

Section: Restricted Field Of Viewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Perceptual Issues in the Use of Head-Mounted Visual Displays

2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Moreover, the narrow FOV with the bright NVG image display draws the focus of attention to the center of the visual field and reduces the ability to acquire peripheral information necessary for orientation. Without proper training, some NVG users also tend to perceive the narrow FOV as representing the entire FOV rather than a small portion of the environment (Brickner & Foyle, 1990). Early studies with PNVGs (e.g., Geiselman & Craig, 1999) have shown that fixed-wing pilots had better performance in tasks such as threat detection, sorting and targeting, and offensive maneuvering when using PNVGs with a wider FOV (100° by 40°) compared with using nonpanoramic NVGs.…”

Section: Cognitive Performancementioning

confidence: 99%

The Human Factors of Night Vision Goggles

Parush¹,

Gauthier²,

Arseneau³

et al. 2011

Reviews of Human Factors and Ergonomics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The technology underlying night vision goggles (NVGs) enhances human ability to operate in dark and low-light conditions. However, NVG-aided vision is limited relative to daylight human vision and may entail risks. This review focuses on NVGs with image intensifier technology and explores the impact of their use on human performance. The review covers technology and device characteristics (image quality and field of view), physical configuration (ocular configuration, NVG weight, and forward center of gravity), and contextual and environmental factors (mission and task aspects, lighting, weather, and terrain). The key human factors in NVG use are visual and cognitive performance (visual acuity and contrast sensitivity, stereopsis and depth perception, distance and size estimation, spatial orientation, and situation awareness), and physical and physiological aspects (neck strain and injuries, and headaches). Understanding technology and contextual factors and their influence on human factors is critical to improving performance and safety with NVGs. Technology and device improvements, along with appropriate mission planning and training, play a critical role in aided night vision performance. INTroDuCTIoN Vision is the most dominant perceptual sense and requires adequate lighting to be effective. Yet there is often a need to operate in inadequate lighting circumstances. Many military missions and tasks are performed in poor light conditions and in the dark because it affords better concealment and surprise. In addition, numerous civilian operations and occupations take place in poor lighting conditions: search and rescue, law enforcement (police, border control, surveillance, etc.), hunting, wildlife observation, and many more. In most of those circumstances, people aim to perform in poor light conditions as well as they would in the daytime. However, although humans have developed exceptional day vision, they nevertheless have poor night vision. There is a real need, therefore, for technologies to enhance vision in low-light circumstances.

show abstract

“…These effects include the underestimation of size and distance in the display and impaired visual cognition (Osgood & Wells, 1991). Brickner and Foyle (1990) The visual system is anatomically subdivided into different visual pathways -the parvocellular and magnocellular pathways (Livingstone & Hubel, 1988;Schiller et al, 1990). ), and they integrate vision with action (e.g., Yabuta, Sawatari & Callaway, 2001;Ts'o & Roe, 1995;Van Essen & DeYoe, 1995).…”

Section: Field Of Viewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Helmet-Mounted Displays for Use in Air Force Training and Simulation

Winterbottom¹,

Patterson²,

Pierce³

2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing this collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY) SPONSORING / MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S)AFRL; AFRL/HEA SPONSOR/MONITOR'S REPORT NUMBER(S)Air ABSTRACTThis report provides a review and analysis of the published literature on head-mounted displays (HMDs). In particular, we discuss several key perceptual issues that are relevant to the use of HMDs. The issues discussed are: (1) brightness and contrast; (2) accommodationvergence synergy; (3) field of view; (4) binocular input; and (5) head movements. This review of the literature is intended to anticipate and solve perceptual issues associated with two particular HMD applications: (1) simulation of off-bore sight (OBS) targeting and (2) full fieldof-view out-the-window (OTW) simulation for deployable flight training. Additionally, several technology issues important to the continued development of HMDs are discussed. This report concludes with a set of recommendations for the design and use of HMDs for OBS and OTW flight training applications.

show abstract

Field of View Effects on a Simulated Flight Task with Head-Down and Head-Up Sensor Imagery Displays

Cited by 8 publications

References 3 publications

Perceptual Issues in the Use of Head-Mounted Visual Displays

Perceptual Issues in the Use of Head-Mounted Visual Displays

The Human Factors of Night Vision Goggles

Helmet-Mounted Displays for Use in Air Force Training and Simulation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About